Should one prisoner’s right to worship be the same as that of a prisoner of a different religion? One would hope so. In reality, equal treatment may not always be the case.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed suit in federal court on behalf of Islamic inmates in Maryland prisons who say the prisoners have been denied the right to assemble for worship, while inmates of other religions are afforded this right. The original complaint is available here.

According to a press release from CAIR, “As a result of this decision, CAIR lawyers will now have the authority to demand documents and information from Prince George’s County about their unequal treatment of Muslim inmates. CAIR will also be able to depose key officials who created and enforced the Islam-specific prison policy challenged by the lawsuit.”“Inmates are among the most vulnerable populations of Americans at risk of having their rights violated,” said CAIR Director of Maryland Outreach Zainab Chaudry. “This decision is a critical step in the right direction to help ensure that Muslim prisoners are able to observe their faith free from discrimination.”

In a past case, the Supreme Court of the United Stats held that prisoners may grow beards for religious purposes, regardless of the prison rules about facial hair. See “Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says,” by Adam Liptak, New York Times, January 20, 2015. Will the new case be treated differently by the courts? Stay tuned.

Is the U.S. Constitution poetry? Maybe, maybe not. However, we do know that the Preamble is best memorized through song. Moreover, even this English major didn’t quite grasp structure until her Con Law class.

Hey! Guess what we found — the archive of most (all?) Jur-E Bulletins from years past. This weekly newsletter on “all things jury” was the precursor of this blog. It was a lot of fun. Thanks to NCSC for putting into their library catalog.

Where have we been? Weeping over the inhumanity of a broken Asus laptop. Its failed body safely entombed in the trunk of our car, we are now emotionally able to continue with our regular blogging schedule. Here goes…

Why a grand jury task force? These things usually grow in the wake of some notorious case. Recall, for example, the bevy of petit jury reformers who got to work after the O.J. case in the 90s. Here, the grand jury is getting a closer look after the Tamir Rice shooting in Cleveland. That grand jury either never took a vote, or did, depending on who’s telling it.

That’s right, the legislature will no longer pay for them. Never mind the poor souls who accidentally die in testate, never mind the vulnerable people who are in need of guardianship. Never mind that probate court is supposed to be a public service.

Instead of funding the courts, the legislature raised fees. Thus, the rich (assuming they don’t have enough warning to plan to die elsewhere, and assuming they lack wills) will pay extremely high fees, which supposedly will fund the rest.

In this day and age, there is a lot we could say about the folks running certain state courts of last resort. Suffice it to say, we will miss the good example set by the pioneering Chief Judge Judith Kaye of New York, who passed away today.